Hi,
2010/6/22 M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com>:
> "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com> writes:
>> 2010/6/22 M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com>:
>>> Alex Converse <alex.converse at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I risk to start a bikeshed, but should we mark it as experimental until it
>>>>> pass the conformance test suite?
>>>>>>>> IIRC experimental doesn't work that way on decoders
>>>>>> I would have said it does work like that, but I'm not sure.
>>>>>> If it doesn't pass the test suite, marking it experimental is probably
>>> a good idea given that we have the libvpx wrapper.
>>>>>> What's missing before it passes tests?
>>>> Bilinear filter, which isn't part of the spec (I brought this up on
>> codec-devel a week ago).
>> There's stuff in the test suite that isn't in the spec? ?Oh dear...
> Why am I not surprised?
Should indeed not be a surprise given the spec's quality. I mean, it's
basically a copy-paste of their reference decoder in a different
order. No wonder they forgot half of it.
More constructively, I think all things that distinguish subversions
(libvpx name) / profiles (David's name for the same thing) are missing
from the spec, so we sort of go by them as we find them.
Ronald